I guess you can think what you want. I just am trying to share what I know and have found out after 2-3 years of research and testing. Being able to use search and rescue dogs with the different kinds of ideas about rerducing human odor has been very enlightening, If your progam works great. If you really want to know try and find proof in the lab and in a field trial with a dog. If you can pass those test you have a winner.

I ended it with a question mark, because it is a bit unclear. However, you do have some pretty strong opinions against other forms of scent control, and if you do stand to make a bunch of money if the stuff you have been working with hits, then I think you should admit that so everyone has a clear picture of your bias. If not, then it makes your points that much stronger. No accusation, just wondering. Hence the question mark.

Respect - don't take it, unless you are willing to give it.Responsibility - don't give it, unless you are willing to take it.

There are a lot of ways to look at this I guess. A lot of my reactions to different kinds of scent control come from testing . Some from the lab , some from field testing , some from other sources.For example if one would read the Carbon court case and see the testimony of the carbon Phd's and their expert analysis plus the personal experiences for those who endorse these products as it is recorded in the trial transcripts there shouldn't be another carbon suit bought except by a fool. You can't fool science.

Nanotechnology covers a lot of different products that are already on the market so I surely don't have a corner on that concept.

What you need to be able to reduce odor is something that will work on your personal bacteria before it turns into a gas. Cut down on the amount of dead skin cells that are able to escape, Something that will attract actual odors and hold them until they can be removed. I think that we have made some strides towards that end and with the help of Bill Robinson and others the future looks promising